Attempts to Deflect Michael Wood Evidence 57


STOP PRESS

RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MICHAEL WOOD’S TESTIMONY, THE GOVERNMENT – NOT CHILCOTT, THE GOVERNMENT – HAS RELEASED MINUTES FROM JACK STRAW ATTACKING SIR MICHAEL WOOD AND HIS LEGAL ADVISERS FOR NOT OFFERING “A FULL RANGE OF VIEWS”.

WOOD’S DAMNING EVIDENCE WAS INTERRUPTED FOR TEN MINUTES, AND NOW THE COMMITTEE ARE ATTACKING MICHAEL ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT JUST RELEASED, FOR FAILING TO OFFER A VIEW THAT THE WAR WAS LEGAL.

INCREDIBLE BIT OF NEWS MANAGEMENT IN WHICH THE COMMITTEE IS COMPLICIT. SKY NEWS THEN IMMEDIATELY CUT TO A VERY LONG AND DULL STATEMENT ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND TALKS – NOT CONNECTED TO A CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THERE.

Further – Sky has now cut to a very dull pre-recorded interview with Alistair Darling. Having given us wall to wall testimony from the New Labour liars, there is no live broadcast of the most important evidence to date.

I have cut this thread to stop discussion of whether Sky acted deliberately from detracting from the main point that the war was deemed illegal.


57 thoughts on “Attempts to Deflect Michael Wood Evidence

1 2
  • Jon

    @sahar – I disagree strongly. The inquiry is full of holes, sure, but it gets interesting when it meets a discontinuity to glaring that even our usually myopic media cannot hop over it. I’m not watching the feed – sadly I am at work – but this sounds like it might be one of these times.

    I agree with your position on technicalities, though – one can get caught up in them to the detriment of the human impact.

  • ediot

    War criminal changes his story:

    “Last month Blair said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of WMD and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public. In a TV interview he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

    The Chilcot inquiry has seen a number of previously leaked Whitehall documents suggesting Blair was in favour of regime change. He is due to give evidence to the inquiry over the next few weeks.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/02/john-major-dismisses-blair-iraq

  • sahar

    ..OK one more thing. The objective was to Remove Saddam. (how did he get into power by the way) He has now gone. So why not all troops leave and let the Iraqi’a sort out their future. And don’t say for security. All the explosions we see everyday are carried out by UK and US to justify their presence. There will never be peace and security in Iraq until all foreign troops leave.

  • Craig

    I am in Africa so I can’t watch it on the internet as the connection is below 2kbps (sic) today.

    Of course the evidence isn’t unavailable – but by taking off the live newsfeed the causal audience is reduced by 95%.

  • Abe Rene

    @sahar

    We cannot so easily assume that something is legal when the most highly qualified legal advisor in a relevant department says that it is not. The AG is a politician expected to toe the party line first of all, and therefore his opinion is not independent and liable to be swayed. Furthermore it is liable not to be as expert as career legal advisors, precisely because he has been selected for party loyalty.

    Besides, here is a leaked report of a secret conversation from the Department for Adequate Public Justification before the Iraq War:

    Junior: Minister, we’re in trouble. The PM managed to pressure the AG into changing his mind and toeing the party line, but the independent chief legal advisor insists that the war is illegal.

    Minister: Some people just don’t know who is boss, do they? Bring the twerp in here. I’ll have a word with him.

    * A Long Conversation later *

    Junior: How did it go, Minister?

    Minister: @#**!!! I might as well have been dealing with the Inquisition. Dogmatically sticking to his position. I tried to explain to him that International law is vague and allows us to interpret it any way we like, but no dice. The impertinent fellow told me that his duty was to give independent advice!

    Junior: But Sir, you are not a qualified lawyer yourself.

    Minister: Don’t you start! Not if you want to make progress here, that is. Questioning the government’s decision, are we?

    Junior: No Sir, of course not.

    Minister: That’s better. Besides, the PM has a law degree, and he’s with the Americans on this, so that’s that. The official advice from the government’s own lawyer, the AG, is what we want, so these “independent expert” legal @#*** advisors can b—dy well drop dead, can they not?

    Junior: Yes Sir! No Sir, I mean, three bags full Sir! Er, I mean ..

    Minister: Oh, get out!

    Junior: Sir!

  • Jives

    Why does this enquiry require a one minute delay on the live feed?

    Can anyone enlighten me please?

  • dreoilin

    “Why does this enquiry require a one minute delay on the live feed?”

    I think it’s in case anyone chokes on his testimony. They have one minute to prop him up and carry on.

  • Richard Robinson

    “But they don’t make edits, do they … why DO they have a one minute delay?”

    So that someone has time to push a ‘mute’ button if someone says something that the public isn’t supposed to hear.

    At least, that was the explanation the BBC gave when it happened a few weeks ago. I forget the details, I can’t even remember if it was the same enquiry.

    The time lag’s for reaction time, is the point. Explanation goes on to emphasise that of course of course of course this could only conceivably be done in extreme cases where the security of the whole nation was under threat, natch. And how could I possibly disagree, not knowing what it was in the first place ?

  • Orwell

    she might well have said “Jack Straw is many things but an international lawyer is not one of them”…

    I’m sure tony is already applying several layers of teflon in readiness for friday’s grilling….

  • Ed Davies

    Here’s my understanding of the resolutions:

    678: kick Iraq’s troops out of Kuwait (using “all necessary means”).

    687: peace deal to end said out kicking, including that Iraq would get rid of its WMDs and allow inspections.

    1441: yes, really, allow the inspections, or else we’ll talk about it or something.

    I have read 678. It’s short and to the point: not much longer than my summary above. The other two are much longer and I haven’t read them.

    Still, I don’t think either 687 or 1441 use the “all necessary means” phraseology which is UN code for possible application of violence.

    Therefore, what I don’t understand is, even if Saddam’s supposed non-compliance with 687 or 1441 reactivated 678 (which I don’t expect they do because of the “no automaticity” comments), how that could authorize an invasion of Iraq when 678 didn’t call for that in the first place.

    In an interview shortly after GW I Norman Schwartzkopf, I think it was, was asked why they didn’t carry on to Baghdad. He said:

    1. Lots of people would die.

    2. The UN hadn’t authorized it.

    3. They thought Saddam would fall anyway.

    Two out of three isn’t bad. It also confirms that that limited interpretation of 678 was clearly understood then.

    I agree that the details of the legality or otherwise of the action aren’t a lot of help to the people of Iraq or much guidance as to what needs to be done now in that country or even whether the invasion was or was not right (as opposed to legal) originally. However, it is important to consider the possibility of legal proceedings against those concerned – as in most crimes taking legal action after the event won’t help the current victims but it does have an “encourage the others” effect people considering such actions in the future.

  • Jives

    I can only then assume the one minute delay is there in case any one of these bastards actually tells the truth…

    Or maybe everyone giving evidence is,ahem,wired up and if they tell some truth then the delay kicks in whilst they recieve some corrective volts through their bodies…

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    Eddie,

    Please check the facts:

    Res. 678 – Legal authorization for the Gulf war.

    Res. 687 – Terms with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf war.

    Res. 1441 – Final opportunity to remedy the material breach of Re. 687

    Res. ???? – Legal authorization for the Iraq war (missing)

    Thus 678, 687, 1441 is, well 678, 687, 1441

    (wiki)

    Simples – pwweet

  • Chris Dooley

    Squeal Eddie, Squeal.

    2+2 does not equal 5 no matter how hard you spin it

    We know it, you know it, and your masters know it.

    The Iraq war was ILLEGAL.

    Let the trials begin.

  • Jives

    eddie, you’re defending the indefensible and i suspect you know it as the catalogue of lies and chaos becomes more apparent by the day at the Chilcott inquiry…

    The whole process is revealed,day by day,as an utterly murderous shambles of lies on an epic scale.

  • marcus

    Could this then lead to the prosecution of those involved?

    Does anyone know if any finding of illegality would lead to the bush administration being looked into perhaps?

    I’m still confused as to what could come out of the recent events.

  • Chris Dooley

    Sorry for the taunting, but it must be a little humiliating for eddie trying to come up with spin on this one.

    I’m more than happy to see him try though.

    Oh very happy 🙂

  • ediot

    Apparently Elizabeth Wilmshurst was applauded by the public gallery when she’d finished giving her evidence.

    The ordinary decent people know the truth; know the difference between right and wrong, something Blair and his gang of criminals must be one day forced to face.

    In the meantime we need to destroy the party system and take parliament back to decent people and away from these evil scum who will destroy our country for theri own financial gain.

  • anno

    I would have liked to apply a little corrective electric shock to UKIP’s Lord Pearson, who said in his horribly refined, effete, Sloaney voice the other day, more than once without being challenged on Radio 4:

    “Islam is not the same as our Judaeo-Christian tradition.”

    ‘I mean’ pvbppppprrrr ‘they don’t lie, like us’ pvbpppprrrr, ‘they don’t fornicate like us’ pfbppprrrrr ‘ they don’t regularly deploy weapons of mass destruction’ pfbppprrrr ‘like us. I think it’s possible there may be something possibly wrong with your microaphoane’ pfbppprrrr

  • ingo

    Elizabeth Wilmshurst was brilliant, she did not even mention Jack Straw by name, just said thatbhe wa not an international lawyer. What a principled woman, I could almost fancy her, just for saying that, with a derisory frisson in her voice, worth an Oscar.

  • Salina Solomon

    It?s just double standard and cheap politics. The ultimate dream is domination and profit by all means! This goes on to prove time and again that the UN-SC is not a functioning entity that is fit for purpose. Yet it has the so called legality/power to impose sanctions on nations that abide by the rule of law!

1 2

Comments are closed.